WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Enkhidu]

...You do have a stake. But, I was more discussing odds, and the impact of those odds. Small chance of something bad happening should have more impact on the owners of small businesses that the bad thing happens to. It's big chance of something bad happening that should have an impact on customers, and you cannot measure "is it a big chance" by "a small business owner directly impacted by the threat is concerned"....

The difference between our POVs is that my perception of risk is greater than yours. I see a far greater chance than 1% that something bad will happen to the GSL, in great part because something bad (its delay past the point of usefulness during the GenCon launch season) has already happened to it. With my limited information (the same info that Clark and the rest of the 3rd party pubs have), I can only view this as at best a sign that the GSL simply isn't viewed as useful enough to play a role at launch. Its not a big leap to see that this POV can be easily linked to the idea that 4e won't benefit from open licensing at all.

 

[2WS-Steve]

The small business owner is probably spooked by all sorts of things all the time that we don't even hear about, because they never come to be reality. If "Clark is spooked, therefore we all should be" were a good way to look at things, odds are we would all be spooked almost every month about something

I think it's important to remember that Clark is not at all dependent on Necromancer or d20 for his income, or even a significant portion of his income. I think he's more spooked as a D&D fan, and, in the last eight years when people were fretting about all kinds of things, I haven't seen him spook at all really.

That's what makes us concerned.

 

[Ydars]

Mistwell; the point is that WoTC have not communicated with their closest 3rd party publisher over GSL, three months after a conference call where they promised GSL. They have not fulfilled one of their promises made in their press statement about how GSL would be handled.

I know it could all be a simple legal glitch, but I seriously doubt it. They have had years to think about all of this stuff even before the GenCon announcement. I don't think lawyers are that bad (LOL).

As for affecting only the small publishers; this is not true. GSL will affect you and me because D&D is not the juggernaut that everyone seems to think it is. It is under attack by computer RPGs and it is vulnerable; look at TSR; they managed to run D&D almost into the ground with bad decisions. It was a powerful brand then but bad decisions can even kill a game as powerful as D&D.

All we are saying is, NO GSL, plus the creative direction of 4e (alienating MANY long time players) plus the fact that many 3PPs can continue to make 3.5E products, plus the rise of games like WoW could be enough to derail the juggernaut again, by splitting the RPG community up to the point where, sometime down the line, WoTC drop D&D because it doesn't cut it anymore.

I want D&D 4E to be a success; a run-away success and so I support GSL because it could bring the 3PPs back into core 4E D&D and maybe most of those gamers who have left D&D for Pathfinder etc.

 

[SSquirrel]

None of the big gaming studios rely on 3rd party sources to improve their brands, and I am sure that WotC will feel the same way the closer 4E comes to release. Blizzard doesn't outsource their game design, just their GMs and product support phone lines. Magic the Gathering doesn't use Korean designers, just artists.

Except that WotC did actually. Several of the updates found in Unearthed Arcana came from 3rd party games first and as they were OGL, were included in WotC's big book of rules modifications. Some of these changes went into 4E. Also Blizzard allows players to make their own mods for WoW and then almost every major patch you can see at least a couple of different mods get subsumed into the base game. Scrolling Combat Text, KTM, more extra bars, etc have all been added to the game along the way as well as many other things.

Companies use the innovations of others all the time in their own work.

 

[SSquirrel]

Note: The person you're responding to, HeavenShallBurn, has never used or implied the word "boycott" in this entire thread. All he said was that he personally wouldn't be buying. So your rant is at least a bit mis-directed.

The OP however DID call for a boycott and HSB was talking about how he will refuse to buy any WotC products, which could have been assumed to mean he was joining said boycott.

 

[Ydars]

I must also add that Ptolus, Arcarna evolved and Iron Heroes are some of the best 3.5E material that exists and all is 3rd party.

In addition, many major designers of 4E cut their teeth designing games in 3rd party companies like Paizo, Goodman Games and Necromancer e.g. Mike Mearls. We NEED that pool of people making cool stuff for D&D.

The next generation of D&D designers could be sitting in Paizo or Necromancer Games right now. What happens to them if GSL screws them up and makes them work on some other system. Some will never return to it. Other designers will never get a chance to make games and so will be completely lost to the industry. 3PPs are an important nursery for talented writers for D&D and this needs saving.

 

[HeinorNY]

You don't think that it's in WotC's best interests to maintain a strong 3rd party support base?

Yes! But does it have really anything to do with open gaming?

What's "open" if one company controls the license? If the OG movement is at check because of one company's decision, if one company controls and gives itself the rights to change it, is OGL really "open" gaming? If only one company dictates if the OGL is a GO or not, wouldn't it be more of a Free Gaming License? D20 system belongs to WOTC. OGL is just a FGL.

A true Open Gaming can only exists when the rules system it is based upon belongs to everyone and to no one. When there is no momma duck watching everyone. When all part contribute to it mutually, instead of individual parts basking in one's work.

But you are right, it is in WOTC's best of the best intersts to maintain a strong 3rd party support base but, as we are going to see in the next months, there is no need of "open gaming" in order to achieve that.


And just to be clear, I not against open gaming. I'd love it. It would be great for the RPG market, and I hope I see it one day.

 

[AZRogue]

Yes! But does it have really anything to do with open gaming?

What's "open" if one company controls the license? If the OG movement is at check because of one company's decision, if one company controls and gives itself the rights to change it, is OGL really "open" gaming? If only one company dictates if the OGL is a GO or not, wouldn't it be more of a Free Gaming License. D20 system belongs to WOTC. OGL is actually just a FGL.

A true Open Gaming can only exists when the rules system it is based upon belongs to everyone and to no one. When there is no momma duck watching everyone. When all part contribute to it mutually, instead of individual parts basking in one's work.

But you are right, it is in WOTC's best of the best intersts to maintain a strong 3rd party support base but, as we are going to see in the next months, there is no need of "open gaming" in order to achieve that.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I expected the GSL to be more restrictive. My complaints, as of the last day or two, have been based upon the fear that there MIGHT (very small chance, to be sure) not be ANY license at all, or that it will be too restrictive to allow 3rd party publishers to explore gaming options that WotC might not have any desire to explore themselves.

The question you quoted was a direct question to Zelster who implied that there was nothing to gain from 3rd party publishing at all. As a matter of fact, he basically insulted 3rd party publishers by saying that all they were good for was to come up with sub-par material like the Book of Erotic Fantasy. I'm sure he thought he was being clever but he only managed to be dismissive and insulting of 3rd party publishing as a whole.

 

[WayneLigon]

I don't play WW games, mostly because they don't support open gaming.

Eh, neither does anyone else. Neither did D&D until 3.0 and it's just not reasonable to expect that they will do so forever afterwards. It's obvious they've simply re-thought their position. You should probably be glad they're doing even the limited GSL.

 

[mxyzplk]

Or on the other hand, we could make & support PATHFINDER. I think that WotC might discover what happens when they sow the wind a few times to many. They can fool some of the people all the time, All of the people some of the time, but they won't fool all the people all of the time. Deciding this late in the game to take away the GSL would be the last straw for many people I expect.

I think this is the best route for several reasons.

1. Paizo has been the 'story' leader for D&D, via Dungeon, Dragon, and the APs, for some time now.
2. They were probably the one 3p that was best integrated with WotC.
3. Pathfinder will be open.
4. The design and playtest of Pathfinder is being conducted in a completely open manner.
5. In general they've always seemed into working together with other 3ps. Clark was part of their RPG Superstar contest, etc.
6. Pathfinder isn't "set" yet so all the 3ps that get on board can shape it.
7. Actually going for a 4e clone invites the long-awaited lawsuit about "can the game rules be copyrighted." Though the patent/copyright environment is finally realizing somewhat that it's been abusively in favor of claimants for some time, it's still a hard roll to make.

I'd love to see one Pathfinder RPG that Freeport, APs, Necro and Goodman modules, etc. all support. It's got a good shot if it's not further fragmented (into True20, C&C, OSRIC, Pathfinder, etc.).